I suggest you drop the Succession. It doesn't succeed in adding to your column.
Assuming that God is omnipotent, and therefore capable of preventing tragedy and suffering generally, the fact that He allows it is the greatest mystery of all, I think. Is God not omnipotent? Is God not interested beyond creation, leaving us to do as we will and, if so, why worship Him? Is God toying with us, watching as we might watch lab rats to see how they react to this or that? Of course, these are unanswerable as we think of answers to questions. We can each only reconcile all this in our hearts as we see fit -- or not.
Interesting questions, Doug. I don't know that I consider myself a religious person. If that is measured by adherence to rituals, then definitely not. However, I think one can also never set foot in a house of worship and still be religious. That said, still not sure how I'd describe myself.
Now, I think many never reconcile their relationship with God. Many make no attempt, many do but feel unsuccessful and a few feel they are successful. I can easily argue that to reconcile a relationship takes two and God remains silent, so is it even possible? That is a matter of faith. I think that those who feel reconciled feel that way as a matter of faith. I'm pretty sure God never replied, "Okay, we're good." (I'm not disrespectful, just a bit irreverent. My father was a rabbi and that shaped my thought process a great deal, I'm sure. I knew the clergy weren't holy. They were my father's friends and colleagues and I knew my father was just a man.)
Why don't all see the same God? Who says they don't? I'm inclined to believe they do, that if God exists there is but one and it is only the interaction of various humans with God that takes different forms. Think of the UN. On any given day, several folks get up to make speeches, each in his/her own language, yet they are all speaking to the same body. I suspect that is the case with religions.
Of course, these are all just my own ideas. I have not received a confirming txt from On High.
Just my 2 cents, no more meaningful than anyone else's. As much as religions want to impose there beliefs and rituals, in good faith, I think it is still always a matter of personal thought, feeling and conviction and, since we are all human, those beliefs, rituals and convictions are all of equal value.
Seriously, I don't think of it as humility. Religion is a great unknown, and actually unknowable. One can have faith, and that can be determinative for many, but it is faith. We cannot prove the existence of God anymore that we can disprove it, so that is why I think it is a matter of personal conviction.
Another excellent substack -- until the last sentence! The actions of those deceased were certainly heroic but I'd supply a different seconr adjective: humane. I don't see how their sacrifice can be attributed to faith or belief in a deity. And to my mind that attribution diminishes the sacrifice.
Job is one of the great biblical stories, but to me (a staunch atheist) the most important feature is the setup: God decides to test Job (or to remove his protection and allow Satan a free hand) only because Satan goads God, challenging His omnipotence. God's permitting Job to undergo terrible suffering is in essence an inhumane act of pride, a response to a dare. My takeaway as an adolescent was: what an Asshole! Decades later, my reaction is the same, leading me to say to Him, as would LR: "F*k off!"
I get the reaction to Job. There's an immaturity to God's behavior, not unlike the rich Philly patricians of "Trading Places."
As for the last line, I was reaching for finding some transcendent meaning in an otherwise meaningless tragedy. It's part of my religious CBT self- therapy.
A very nice essay David. I'm 69 and been not only anti religious but anti-anthropomorphic "god" since I was 14 or so. I was all into physics then. My younger brother is BA MA MThem from Dallas Theological Seminary (one of the top) and DDiv. He's smart! Love him. We have the best discussions! I absolutely believe their is zero casual interactions with a superior god. Which derives to, we have complete free will.
I derive the following in response to this great section I quoted. I say Faith is the acceptance of not knowing. So the reconciliation between an horrible Evil god (that's a human personality right..) and a loving Good god, requires unrequited Faith. The acceptance of never understanding WHY.
"In philosophy, this effort to reconcile faith in a God who, despite having limitless powers, still allows evil and injustice to flourish is called “theodicy.”
I think the real conundrum is this. The totality of what is and what’s not, what’s imaginable and what’s not, what might change and what cannot is so far beyond our understanding that any reference to it reduces it to an infinitesimally small measure of what that totality might or might not be. And that is before we even begin to ask the first of the questions, “Does Gd exist?” or the second of the questions, “If Gd exists, is Gd that totality or did Gd make that totality and stand apart from it?” or the third of the questions, “If Gd does not exists, from where did all of this come?” or the fifth question, the one that troubles us the most, “Why”?
Ultimately, our capacities are so small, our limitations so large, that even our questions are tiny and insufficient because we are all “the child who does not how to ask”. Even so, tiny as they are, our questions and our curiosity are the most constant and truthful way we have to engage that in which we exist. It is the answers that are ephemeral, dangerous, and belittling.
I agree with Samuel about the motivations of the parents protecting their kids. It had nothing to do with faith in God, at that moment, nor do we know what went through their minds except horror and fight-or-flight mentality. I am agnostic, I think. When convenient, otherwise. Certain moments in my life, I have half-courted a prayer. I both envy and pity those who have a "relationship" with God. Heaven is one Hell of a business. But, David, your articles...I wait for them.
I think a lot of people miss David French, and as I already pointed out, you quickly brought in quite a few comments on this piece. My husband is a Jew, and also belonged to the “Reform Jew” group. (Sorry if I’m not wording that correctly.) That somewhat reminds me of Episcopalians and Catholics, and I see both (Reform and Episcopalian) as being more pragmatic. Nothing against Catholics (or any other religious group), but my mom always liked to call the Episcopal Church, the “thinking person’s church.” What she meant by that is we have questions!
We don’t believe that the Bible is necessarily “the word of God,” so we don’t take it “literally.” For us, it is stories, created by men, and a lot of them were for the purposes of keeping order. Not necessarily a bad thing. To be honest, I haven’t attended church in a number of years, and I’ve never been someone who read the Bible closely. I cannot cite scripture! My husband’s family was not particularly avid followers of Judaism, so there are a lot of things I’ll ask him, and he doesn’t have an answer without looking it up. I’d say the same thing for me.
I don’t presume to know anything when it comes to whether or not there is a “God,” but life is complicated, and I find it interesting that we are all seeking something more. We all want there to be a purpose or a point in all of this, something that seems to be universal. Even if I can’t explain it, I find it difficult to believe it’s all just an “accident.”
David, thank you for this thoughtful substack. You link together a handful of events and theological ideas. The sparks fly between them. I am sorting out a response but for the moment I want to appreciate the way you raise the theodicy issue.
Beautiful
I suggest you drop the Succession. It doesn't succeed in adding to your column.
Assuming that God is omnipotent, and therefore capable of preventing tragedy and suffering generally, the fact that He allows it is the greatest mystery of all, I think. Is God not omnipotent? Is God not interested beyond creation, leaving us to do as we will and, if so, why worship Him? Is God toying with us, watching as we might watch lab rats to see how they react to this or that? Of course, these are unanswerable as we think of answers to questions. We can each only reconcile all this in our hearts as we see fit -- or not.
Respectfully Josh, here is my conundrum. I'm a non religious person.
A. If god is omnipresent, then
B. Why don't all reconcile that in their own internal private relationship with god?
C. Why don't all see the same god?
Interesting questions, Doug. I don't know that I consider myself a religious person. If that is measured by adherence to rituals, then definitely not. However, I think one can also never set foot in a house of worship and still be religious. That said, still not sure how I'd describe myself.
Now, I think many never reconcile their relationship with God. Many make no attempt, many do but feel unsuccessful and a few feel they are successful. I can easily argue that to reconcile a relationship takes two and God remains silent, so is it even possible? That is a matter of faith. I think that those who feel reconciled feel that way as a matter of faith. I'm pretty sure God never replied, "Okay, we're good." (I'm not disrespectful, just a bit irreverent. My father was a rabbi and that shaped my thought process a great deal, I'm sure. I knew the clergy weren't holy. They were my father's friends and colleagues and I knew my father was just a man.)
Why don't all see the same God? Who says they don't? I'm inclined to believe they do, that if God exists there is but one and it is only the interaction of various humans with God that takes different forms. Think of the UN. On any given day, several folks get up to make speeches, each in his/her own language, yet they are all speaking to the same body. I suspect that is the case with religions.
Of course, these are all just my own ideas. I have not received a confirming txt from On High.
Fabulous and thank you
Very helpful, Josh. ❤️
Just my 2 cents, no more meaningful than anyone else's. As much as religions want to impose there beliefs and rituals, in good faith, I think it is still always a matter of personal thought, feeling and conviction and, since we are all human, those beliefs, rituals and convictions are all of equal value.
I appreciate your humility, but I also find you to be wise. A good combination in my book.
I have been called a wise guy before.
Seriously, I don't think of it as humility. Religion is a great unknown, and actually unknowable. One can have faith, and that can be determinative for many, but it is faith. We cannot prove the existence of God anymore that we can disprove it, so that is why I think it is a matter of personal conviction.
Mazal Tov, by the way.
Another excellent substack -- until the last sentence! The actions of those deceased were certainly heroic but I'd supply a different seconr adjective: humane. I don't see how their sacrifice can be attributed to faith or belief in a deity. And to my mind that attribution diminishes the sacrifice.
Job is one of the great biblical stories, but to me (a staunch atheist) the most important feature is the setup: God decides to test Job (or to remove his protection and allow Satan a free hand) only because Satan goads God, challenging His omnipotence. God's permitting Job to undergo terrible suffering is in essence an inhumane act of pride, a response to a dare. My takeaway as an adolescent was: what an Asshole! Decades later, my reaction is the same, leading me to say to Him, as would LR: "F*k off!"
I get the reaction to Job. There's an immaturity to God's behavior, not unlike the rich Philly patricians of "Trading Places."
As for the last line, I was reaching for finding some transcendent meaning in an otherwise meaningless tragedy. It's part of my religious CBT self- therapy.
A very nice essay David. I'm 69 and been not only anti religious but anti-anthropomorphic "god" since I was 14 or so. I was all into physics then. My younger brother is BA MA MThem from Dallas Theological Seminary (one of the top) and DDiv. He's smart! Love him. We have the best discussions! I absolutely believe their is zero casual interactions with a superior god. Which derives to, we have complete free will.
I derive the following in response to this great section I quoted. I say Faith is the acceptance of not knowing. So the reconciliation between an horrible Evil god (that's a human personality right..) and a loving Good god, requires unrequited Faith. The acceptance of never understanding WHY.
"In philosophy, this effort to reconcile faith in a God who, despite having limitless powers, still allows evil and injustice to flourish is called “theodicy.”
I think the real conundrum is this. The totality of what is and what’s not, what’s imaginable and what’s not, what might change and what cannot is so far beyond our understanding that any reference to it reduces it to an infinitesimally small measure of what that totality might or might not be. And that is before we even begin to ask the first of the questions, “Does Gd exist?” or the second of the questions, “If Gd exists, is Gd that totality or did Gd make that totality and stand apart from it?” or the third of the questions, “If Gd does not exists, from where did all of this come?” or the fifth question, the one that troubles us the most, “Why”?
Ultimately, our capacities are so small, our limitations so large, that even our questions are tiny and insufficient because we are all “the child who does not how to ask”. Even so, tiny as they are, our questions and our curiosity are the most constant and truthful way we have to engage that in which we exist. It is the answers that are ephemeral, dangerous, and belittling.
I am so moved by your last lines I can't write.
I can only thank you for your compassion.
I agree with Samuel about the motivations of the parents protecting their kids. It had nothing to do with faith in God, at that moment, nor do we know what went through their minds except horror and fight-or-flight mentality. I am agnostic, I think. When convenient, otherwise. Certain moments in my life, I have half-courted a prayer. I both envy and pity those who have a "relationship" with God. Heaven is one Hell of a business. But, David, your articles...I wait for them.
Thanks Daniel.
You should do more on this subject. This was excellent, and you attracted some interesting comments.
Thanks for the feedback and encouragement, Anne.
Very much appreciated.
I think a lot of people miss David French, and as I already pointed out, you quickly brought in quite a few comments on this piece. My husband is a Jew, and also belonged to the “Reform Jew” group. (Sorry if I’m not wording that correctly.) That somewhat reminds me of Episcopalians and Catholics, and I see both (Reform and Episcopalian) as being more pragmatic. Nothing against Catholics (or any other religious group), but my mom always liked to call the Episcopal Church, the “thinking person’s church.” What she meant by that is we have questions!
We don’t believe that the Bible is necessarily “the word of God,” so we don’t take it “literally.” For us, it is stories, created by men, and a lot of them were for the purposes of keeping order. Not necessarily a bad thing. To be honest, I haven’t attended church in a number of years, and I’ve never been someone who read the Bible closely. I cannot cite scripture! My husband’s family was not particularly avid followers of Judaism, so there are a lot of things I’ll ask him, and he doesn’t have an answer without looking it up. I’d say the same thing for me.
I don’t presume to know anything when it comes to whether or not there is a “God,” but life is complicated, and I find it interesting that we are all seeking something more. We all want there to be a purpose or a point in all of this, something that seems to be universal. Even if I can’t explain it, I find it difficult to believe it’s all just an “accident.”
David, thank you for this thoughtful substack. You link together a handful of events and theological ideas. The sparks fly between them. I am sorting out a response but for the moment I want to appreciate the way you raise the theodicy issue.